Friday, October 14, 2011

He noted that the Ukrainian authorities, the Justice Ministry and the
working group have done good work to improve the electoral law, although
it still has many flaws.

Markert recalled that Ukraine currently has a proportional election system with a 3% election threshold.

"What we do not like in this system, and what, I think most people in
Ukraine do not like in this system, is that it is a system with a single
election list, without any constituencies, which means that whether you
live in Kyiv or in Donetsk, you still have the same candidate," the
commission's secretary said.

He recalled that the Venice Commission recommended Ukraine should
retain a proportional system and then gradually introduce regional lists
and open lists, in which voters will be able to decide who will be
their candidate.

At the same time, the proposed bill greatly changes the election system
and envisages the return to mixed-member proportional representation,
increases the election threshold to 5% and bans the participation of
blocs of political forces in the election.

"So it will be harder [for political parties] to get seats in
parliament, and the other half of deputies will be elected in
single-mandate constituencies," he said.

According to him, the Venice Commission recommends Ukraine should not return to a mixed election system.

"Also, Ukraine's united opposition clearly told us that they are
absolutely against changing the system, and that they want to maintain
the existing electoral legislation. In our view, the electoral system
has to be changed under the broad consensus of political forces,"
Markert said.

The Venice Commission secretary said that another problem was defining
the boundaries of single-mandate constituencies because each party will
try to move them in favor of their candidate, since there are no
criteria for determining their borders.

"This is our main concern. As for the rest, the bill provides a good foundation for the upcoming elections," he said.

1 Comment:

A better option is to establish 45 local electorates with each electorate being approximately the same in size in terms of the number of constituents (+/- 10% variance) and each electorate would elect 9 members of parliament. (Total 450)

The method of election should be by Single Transferable Proportional Representation voting. Voters would rank each candidate/party in order of preference. (1, 2, 3 etc) The method of counting the vote being either Meek or Wright.

Each candidate would be elected on a 10% quota and importantly have an equal mandate. Supporters of minor candidates, who fall below the 10% quota, would not be disenfranchised as their votes would be redistributed to form part of a quota of an alternative candidate as determined by the voter's order of preference.

Such a model would provide a fair electoral system that is accountable and representative of the electorate.

News in review

Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) Explanatory Report calls on Ukraine to adopt a Full Parliamentary System in line with other European States

"It would be better for the country to switch to a full parliamentary system with proper checks and balances and guarantees of parliamentary opposition and competition."

Constitutional Court challenge

The authority of the President to dismiss Ukraine's parliament has been challenged in Ukraine's Constitutional Court amidst concern that the President's actions are unconstitutional in that he has exceeded his authority to dismiss Ukraine's parliament.

On April 19 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution in consideration of a report titled Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. (Items 13 and 14) stated:

“ The Assembly deplores the fact that the judicial system of Ukraine has been systematically misused by other branches of power and that top officials do not execute the courts’ decisions, which is a sign of erosion of this crucial democratic institution. An independent and impartial judiciary is a precondition for the existence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Hence the urgent necessity to carry out comprehensive judicial reform, including through amendments to the constitution.

The Assembly reiterates that the authority of the sole body responsible for constitutional justice – the Constitutional Court of Ukraine – should be guaranteed and respected. Any form of pressure on the judges is intolerable and should be investigated and criminally prosecuted. On the other hand, it is regrettable that in the eight months of its new full composition, the Constitutional Court has failed to produce judgments, thus failing to fulfil its constitutional role and to contribute to resolving the crisis in its earlier stages, which undermines the credibility of the court.

There is an urgent need for all pending judgments, and in particular the judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Presidential Decree of 2 April 2007, to be delivered. If delivered, the latter should be accepted as binding by all sides.
”

The associated explanatory report under the sub-heading of Pressure on the courts expressed concern that "Several local courts have made decisions to suspend the Presidential Decree only to then withdraw them, allegedly under pressure from the presidential secretariat." (item 67)

In emphasis the report (item 68) stated

"This is a worrying tendency of legal nihilism that should not be tolerated. It is as clear as day that in a state governed by the rule of law judicial mistakes should be corrected through appeal procedures and not through threats or disciplinary sanctions ”

On April 30, on the eve of the Constitutional Court's ruling on the legality of the president's decree dismissing Ukraine's parliament, President Yushchenko, in defiance of the PACE resolution of April 19 intervened in the operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court by summarily dismissing two Constitutional Court Judges, Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy, for allegations of "oath treason." His move was later overturned by the Constitutional Court and the judges were returned by a temporary restraining order issued by the court.

Following the president's intervention the Constitutional Court still has not ruled on the question of legality of the president's actions.

Stepan Havrsh, the President's appointee to the Constitutional Court, in prejudgment of the courts decision and without authorization from the Court itself, commented in an interview published on July 24

“ I cannot imagine myself as the Constitutional Court in condition in which three political leaders signed a political/legal agreement on holding early elections, which also stipulates the constitutional basis for holding the elections... How the court can agree to consider such a petition under such conditions.”

Olexander Lavrynovych, Ukrainian Minister for Justice, in an interview published on Aug 3 is quoted as saying

“ According to the standards of the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine, these elections should have been recognized invalid already today. But we understand that we speak about the State and about what will happen further in this country. As we've understood, political agreements substitute for the law, ... The situation has been led to the limit, where there are no possibilities to follow all legal norms.